lagarthaaz

A scary movie is not the authority on what "hell" is really like - it's based on writer's imaginings on the topic. Try to see the film for what it is - a carefully constructed set of edited images and sounds designed to scare us.
 
If horror films are making you feel so bad as to think you are destined for "hell" - then it seems they are messing with your psyche. A better option might be to stop watching horror films and use your time to view media that will uplift and fill you with hope, laughter and joy. 

I have found that the church has a very good method for people who cannot abide by the gospel principles will leave the church.  The faithful will stay regardless of politics.

From google's dictionary (since it's important that if we're gonna discuss a topic like this, it would be best first to agree on which definition we're going by):
...and cuz the very next paragraph in John A. Widtsoe's book after the "It is folly..." bit, starts with this sentence:
...or maybe I should just go make popcorn, in case this is an action-adventure thread... (minutes later: "Wow! Who knew there were so many smiley faces to choose from!)

I was contacted by a ward member the other day about a certain multi-level-marketing (pyramid scheme) scam that is run by Orrin Woodward and Chris Brady, two of the greatest scammers ever.  I mean, these guys are genius right down to Google bombing and selling support product to support their other failing product. They are also pros at manipulation by edification.

I can say no to this stuff easily.  That is not the problem.  The problem is that I care about the ward members and it really bugs me when I see them getting sucked into this stuff that is most likely illegal.
 
How do I approach the member and tactfully tell them they are being scammed and they are perpetuating a scam?

Sincerely,
 
 
Str8Shooter,
 
The guy who has no tact and says awkward things that totally offends people when he is trying to be nice.
 
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04OEfvS2Lcg

SALT LAKE CITY — 
Saturday, November 14, the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued the following statement regarding the attacks in Paris:
 
"With people around the world, we mourn today as we consider the horrific tragedies that have occurred in Paris. We pray for those affected, for their families and loved ones, for the leaders of nations and most especially for the people of France as they struggle to recover from the violence and loss they are feeling so deeply. We have directed that flags on Temple Square be flown at half staff, and that the French flag be flown here as an expression of our love and support for them. In these hours of uncertainty and despair, we ask members of the Church everywhere to join with us in our prayer that the peace of the Savior Jesus Christ will provide comfort, healing, understanding and hope."
 
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/french-flags-temple-square-love-and-support

With the example I gave in response #15 (the one just before yours) my pointing out the weakness of a young man not attending church resulted in a young man returning to activity and eventually a temple marriage.  And yes I did feel good and more charity towards him - and still do.

I believe in making judgments - I believe it is impossible to employ any measure of agency and not make judgments.  It seem to me the problem in making judgments is using them to categorize others when in reality our judgments are our standards.  It seems to me that we are not really categorizing others but rather ourselves.  For example when someone is sure someone else is dressed immodestly - they are actually saying something as much or more so about themselves than they are about others.  In other words they are vocalizing the standards by which they want to be judged or others make judgments of them and understand when they are displaying their immodesty.
 
I have posted in another thread about my personal covenant concerning Sabbath dress.  I always wear a white shirt - this I do by personal covenant.  I hold my covenants sacred.  However, once while traveling for work I encountered a young man that was a return missionary that had become inactive (10 years since attending) with his personal covenants.  As we conversed - he expressed a desire to "come" back.  I invited him to attend Church with me on Sunday.  It was a ward I had attended before - and always in my suit, white shirt and tie.  But this young man told me he had nothing appropriate to wear to Church. I challenged this young man that his attendance at church at this point of his life was far more important that wearing something he knew to be appropriate.  All he had was a tee shirt and levies - so I told him I would pick him up and I would wear a tee shirt and levies and that we would go together.
 
Now someone seeing me at church that Sunday might think that I had dishonored my personal covenant - but the reality - at least as far as I am concerned, my covenant was untainted.  But at the same time I did learn a very important lesson.  Whenever I see someone at church wearing a tee shirt and levies - I make a great effort to make sure they feel welcome and know that I am so glad that they came to church.
 
Sometimes those struggling with covenants are more in need of love and fellowship than criticism.

Boy, Mormons sure like to toss out the "judgment" word.  Especially while in the act of judging others.
 
Have I gone to these women and scolded them?  But I guess expressing my opinion (what so many Mormons like to call "judgment") that - yes - those outfits are immodest is verboten in Mormonland.  As is my confusion at the inconsistent and hypocritical messages sent. No wonder people outside the church roll their eyes.  We're supposed to be modest.  Except for when we want to make money?  Except for when we just feel like?  Tell me what are the REAL rules on modesty?  And why are you allowed the "judgment" that dressing immodestly is perfectly okay but anyone who disagrees with you is not allowed to make that "judgment"?
 
I have at least half a dozen personal friends in the entertainment industry - for decades - who have never worn outfits...costumes...whatever you want to call them...that would be considered immodest or incompatible with garment wearing.  So it IS possible.  Just as I knew untold numbers of Orthodox Jews who did the same.  It's a CHOICE.  Dressing modestly is a choice.  Dressing immodestly is a choice.  No one is forced either way.
 
But I am not allowed to scratch my head over the mixed message sent. It comes across clearly that the REAL teaching is that we dress modestly and wear our garments except for when we don't want to.  No showering, swimming or intimacy need be involved. 
 
Or is it just when it involves money, for that is the justification being given here.  I am going to be homeless in a few weeks if I don't find a way to increase my income.  Pot is legal here in Oregon and there's a crap-ton of money to be made in that industry.  Soooo....that would be cool for me to sell pot, right? Or with just a bit of training, I could become a pot "mixologist" and make a cool $90,000 a year.  Heck, I could even make more just trimming the plants than working where I work now.  Because it would be my JOB and that's a free pass.  Or if I wanted to become a stripper.  They make good money and I really need the income.  And it's a JOB, right?
 
Or...as Folk Prophet hinted at in his post....maybe it's dependent on the time involved.  Like if I were a model and I only modeled lingerie part time instead of full-time, that would be cool with the "rules".  Or if I worked only part-time in the pot industry.  Yeah...I just have to figure out what the time limit is that's allowed by the church and then it's all good.
 
And I wasn't talking about any of those other situations you listed.  So nice of you to treat me like a moron. 
 
It was this kind of crap on message boards that was a real turn-off when investigating the church.  It's still a big turn-off.
 
And still....no one has ever addressed the mixed message.  Anyone can use any reason at any time not to dress modestly...not to wear their garments....and it's okay.  ALWAYS.  For ANY reason. That is the reality.  No one is willing to address things like why it's okay for a young, married, endowed woman to post endless photos on FaceBook of herself in various states of undress and partial nudity. That wouldn't be considered modest by anyone.  How that aligns with what we are taught in the temple about wearing our garments.  Oh yeah...right...I can't n think about that much less ask about it. It's "judging". 
 
There are people who have a stroke over the thought of someone not wearing their garments to bed at night, but if someone wants to leave their garments at home because they want to go out in that dress that plunges down to there and slit up to here to make sure they get noticed...well...that's perfectly okay.  Nope, can't have a discussion about the dissonance.  That would be "judging".
 
You know...one of the reasons I was drawn to the church was because the member who first shared their testimony and beliefs with me did it in a way very different from any other Christian addressed me as a Jew.  There was no 'you're bad, you're wrong, you're going to hell".   But - wow - once you're a member, the attacks never end.  No matter what side of an issue you are on, there's guaranteed to be members to tell you how wrong  and bad you are. 
 
But...noooo....THEY aren't the ones judging.
 
People can walk down the street naked for all I care.  (This is Portland. This happens).  But I do care about trying to figure out the logic behind all of this.  Or I did.  Because there really isn't an answer other than the Mormons top the list of religions whose members pick and choose what "rules" they follow.
 
So the next time I pass on buying that cute dress because....whoopsie...it's backless....I won't have to pass on it.  Because it's okay to be modest or not.  And it's okay to wear your garments or not.  Whatever floats your boat, right?

NOTE: I am not by any means denying that we have a big problem of women dressing, speaking, and behaving immodestly.  I am not denying that this is driven by various worldly factors.  I am denying that this is strictly a problem of the way women dress, speak, and behave; and that it can be solved by addressing only that side of things.
 
If you only teach the young men that the young women ought to dress modestly, you're teaching them that their reactions to what girls wear aren't their fault cuz the girls never shoulda been wearing that in the first place.
 
The prevalence of a problem does not, in my opinion, seem relevant.  It is possible for men to be immodest, and we should teach everyone that modesty is the standard for all of us, regardless of gender.  Immodesty includes appearance, speech, and behavior.  Immodesty includes watching that porn made for men.  Immodesty includes the ogling of men and women.  Immodesty includes the tight muscle shirt intended to attract / impress the girls (even if the girls' biological reaction isn't always as strong as the male biological reaction), as well as whatever skimpy outfit the girl is wearing.
 
I object to addressing the issue one-sided because that's part of our problem.  Even the dictionary (google's in this case) contributes to the wrong opinion that only women can be modest (and therefore immodest)... Their definition of modest:
 
A man can't dress or behave so as to avoid (or encourage, if we reverse this) impropriety or indecency, especially to avoid (or encourage...) attracting sexual attention?  They certainly can.
 
Interestingly, "immodest" is defined as "lacking humility or decency." - men (and women) can certainly be guilty of that, as well as the reverse of modest, whatever the word is for that.
 
As I mentioned previously, I would hope that long before we get anywhere near porn, we're teaching about the sacred nature of the human body, about the importance of all of us dressing, speaking, and behaving toward ourselves and others in a way appropriate to that sacredness (and that we're not teaching that modesty is just the way women dress).

Modesty as a principle is literally not even understood by many of this generation. It is an attitude, reflected in but not defined by clothing choices. Modesty is the refusal to use one's body as a sexual bargaining chip. Sexuality is (or should be) sacred and precious; modest people are those who keep it as such. The Saudi Muslim girl who exposes some of her scalp and makes eyes at the boys is being immodest, while the American Christian girl who wears shorts and a short-sleeved blouse to a service activity may well be perfectly modest. It is not primarily a matter of clothing, but of intent.

Now, see, college is a place for dumbness like this.  It's where little sheltered kiddos get their first taste of coming out from under their mamma's aprons, and get to do some things on their own.  It's where they get their first taste of how utterly idiotic some of the crap they believe truly is.  Because they say it out loud, and then get smacked upside the head with the tree of sarcastic smarter people who shame the idiocy out of (most of) them.
 
I remember it in my college days.  The drunk idiot standing in a pile of empty beer bottles failing to score with his lady interest about how interested in the environment he was.  The angry students protesting the lack of parking, the lack of places to study at the library, the cost of tuition, the unfairness of blood for oil.  The girl who took off her clothes and read poetry on the waterfall statue thing until she got arrested.  The asinine letters to the editor.  All of them, a rough stone rolling down the hill, getting the stupid knocked off of them and some smarts beaten into them through life experiences. 
 
Except in this case - where the idiots got mad enough that the university started firing the smart people for not catering to their bawling moronity with the proper sensitivity.  
 
With this post, I hereby begin my years as crotchety old man.  We need another VietNam to thin out the ranks of these weenies. (No, I don't really mean that, but from what I hear, it's a crotchety old man thing to say, and I want to start strong, being only in my mid-40's).

All missionaries are safe and were told to stay inside

Praying my daughter doesn't get her mission call to Europe!

I believe there are two considerations.  First consideration - what are your personal covenants.  As a young single man I made a covenant with G-d that I would court (date) with intent and purpose of a Temple (Celestial) marriage.   As I was dating, I dated several non-LDS (most of which ended up being baptized).  But my mission and covenant in dating was to find a young lady to take to the temple to be married for eternity.  I took my covenant seriously - before leaving for any date I would have a private prayer and would go over my date plan with my Father in Heaven.  If I planned to kiss my date - I would tell my plan to my Father and ask for his approval and help to accomplish my plan.  When I finished my date I would return to private prayer and report to my Father in detail how things had gone - and when appropriate and necessary I would repent and ask for forgiveness.  I had strong desire to be worthy to take a worthy and pure daughter of G-d to the temple on our wedding day - when Lady Traveler and I were married - it was mission accomplished.  I believe for me - anything less then a worthy temple marriage would be a definite step into apostasy.
 
Second consideration, What are the circumstances and covenants of courtship?  This often depends on the faith, prayer and preparations an individual makes during their courtship years (or months, weeks or days).  I believe that anytime a person know to do a good thing and does not do it - it is an act of apostasy.  Some have married in ignorance  - and that I do not believe to be apostasy.  But I would recommend to anyone that does not currently have a temple covenant of marriage - that you strongly consider making a covenant with G-d to be worthy. 
 
First get yourself in order - make a covenant with G-d that you will do anything he ask that you may have an eternal marriage.  Then step by step make your covenant a part of your daily life.  Pray every morning and outline your plan for the day - and every night report back on your plan.  This will place you directly on the path G-d would have you on and for sure off the path of apostasy.  I promise that you will be blessed according to covenant with an eternal marriage.  It may not come in this life but if you are faithful the blessing and treasure of heaven will be yours to keep for eternity.
 
I would also suggest that anyone follow this same attitude of covenant - even if they are currently married in the temple - make a covenant with G-d and every morning pray and present your plan and covenant to G-d and every night report how you have done - I promise all that covenant with G-d that they will have the desire of their heart - and if you do not wish to covenant with G-d - you are on the path of apostasy.

Your husband needs to consider who came up with the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.  It's not scripture.  More than 700 people contributed to the encyclopedia, including a large number of BYU professors.
 
How come he thinks this is revelation?  What does he care what some BYU professor thinks about how apostasy works?

A very bad idea. 

Nope.  The website your husband was reading is total bunk (as you suspected).
 
Exhibit A: I’m married to a non-Mormon and perfectly good standing with the church.  It was even my bishop who married us!
 
Exhibit B: Lag, I would highly suspect that you’re in perfectly good standing with the church. 
 
Now, I would say that being married to a non-LDS person is a bit more complicated and can be harder to stay active if the spouse is not supportive.  But it is perfectly doable.  But you already know this Lag, 

In the sense of the context of Gay Marriage the definition of Apostasy is open rebellion against the teaching of the church.
 
While the Encyclopedia of Mormonism is not official it is not wrong in saying that the steps leading there are gradual.  The example it gives are some very real possibilities but it is by no means an exclusive list.
 
It is also possible that two Sealed in the temple Mormons have taken a few steps in that direction.
 
However it is a serious logical and reasoning failure to say that because something might be a few steps in that direction it is the only place a person could end up.  That is as bad as someone saying "Because a trip to New York begins with taking a step out you door... That every time you step our your door you must be headed for and can only end up in New York."  It is a totally absurd statement.

I think of it as missionary work.

Agreed
 
Agreed. Big difference between something that may lead vs. something that is considered apostasy.
 
I can take a snap shot of 10 actual sisters I actually know who married outside the church. Carborendum's example of his personal sister unfortunately rings too true. Of the ten sisters I know:
 
2 - Husbands were baptized after about 20-30 years only once they aged in their senior/elder years.
1 - Currently has a "supportive" spouse who allows home teachers, comes to events and appears pretty neutral.
4 - Have non-supportive husbands. Husbands who gripe every time the wife wants to go to church, relief society events, etc. Husbands who intentionally plan family outings on Sunday. Husbands who tell the kids they don't need to go to Seminary in the morning so they can get more sleep to be in some other school activity. Husbands who make is apparently awkward for home/visiting teachers to come over. Husbands who are always trying to slide in "gotcha" remarks, ex: "see the news says drinking wine is good for you", "I know a Mormon who screwed up this way...", or articles similar to what your husband presented. Most of these sisters have never been endowed either. In some cases because the husband didn't want the wife in Gs. So on and so on.
3 - Divorced
 
I feel bad for those spouses who carry the burden all by themselves to raise a family in the church, especially the sisters who don't have the priesthood in their home, etc. 
 
In my opinion, why does it have the potential of leading to apostasy for both the member spouse and the member kids...
the inability to serve two masters. You are trying to teach one example, and your spouse may be teaching a totally different one. Divided loyalties exist in the family, that can lead to spiritual weakness and confusion.
 
So long answer to your question: NO marrying outside the church is not apostasy, but from what I have seen time and time again it is a huge up hill battle and many people can't keep up the fight when their main person of supposed support is actually the anchor dragging them down. 

It is not necessarily apostasy. It can be, in the cases where it is against the commandments of God. I also want to draw your attention to the source of the quote. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism is not a source of official church doctrine. Although a quick Google search will tell you that it is semi-official, it is not. All official church doctrine and manuals have the full text available on their website and is published by the church not a single individual.

Fixed it for you.  

Thanks for the exciting trip down Mesopotamian lane, a truly incredible ancient culture that I freely admit I am in awe of.  But your analogy between Babylon and our western cultural achievements IS a sobering thought, especially in light of scripture.
 
I used to spend a lot of time reading the Book of Revelation, but stopped because even though I know it is symbolic, it gave me the heebie-jeebies over an end-time that I have zero control over. One example...
 
We are warned that people will find the accomplishments of Babylon incredibly seductive, and most chillingly: 
 
And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived...And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth. (Revelation 18:23-24).
 
This brings to mind for me the sophistry of certain 'great men' today who deny god's existence and yet are feted and adored by the western world. Will the blood of prophets and saints be shed in the future as a result of this I wonder, and at the very least, does this scripture symbolise persecution of the saints in the end times by our modern day Babylon?

I asked this in the other thread, but thought I would throw it here too.  Is the resurrection universal, or is it tied to salvation?